Lazar Critique

by Dr. David L. Morgan

In 1996, I was asked to review the content of a
Bob Lazar website by an online acquaintance. Since then, my critique has
been posted to Usenet discussion boards, featured on web pages, and taken
on something of a life of its own. I still get email about it monthly,
which is quite amusing, considering it’s been almost 5 years since I wrote
it. Since the original posting was intended to be an informal email, the
tone was somewhat harsh and flippant, and some sections were a bit too
dismissive. I decided recently that I would try to put together a revision
of the now-infamous paper. That revision is presented below.

After reading an account by Bob Lazar of the “physics”
of his Area 51 UFO propulsion system, my conclusion is this: Mr. Lazar
presents a scenario which, if it is correct, violates a whole handful of
currently accepted physical theories. That in and of itself does not necessarily
mean that his scenario is impossible. But the presentation of the scenario
by Lazar is troubling from a scientific standpoint. Mr. Lazar on many occasions
demonstrates an obvious lack of understanding of current physical theories.
On no occasion does he acknowledge that his scenario violates physical
laws as we understand them, and on no occasion does he offer up any hints
of new theories which would make his mechanism possible. Mr. Lazar has
a propensity for re-defining scientific terms, and using scientific language
in a confusing and careless way. For these reasons, I don’t feel that Lazar's
pseudo-scientific ramblings are really worthy of any kind of serious consideration.

I will focus on the parts of Lazar's text which I took the most exception
with- most of these excerpts relate to particle physics, which is my field.
Lazar's text is in boldface. He begins by describing the principle behind
interstellar travel...

This is accomplished by generating an intense gravitational field
and using that field to distort space/time, bringing the destination to
the source, and allowing you to cross many light years of space in little
time and without traveling in a linear mode near the speed of light.

I’m less bothered by the wording of this passage now
than I used to be, although I still think it’s misleading. If you are distorting
spacetime with a gravitational field, it produces a very specific kind
of distortion, and a very specific kind of attraction. That’s what gravity
IS – a distortion in spacetime, at least according to general relativity.
And gravity attracts EVERYTHING. A gravitational field is a gravitational
field...you can't pick and choose which objects it has an effect on. So,
going by what Lazar says here, I still say that if you were to generate
a gravitational field intense enough to warp spacetime and "bring the destination
to the source" you'll also bring everything else in the nearby universe
to the source too! If Mr. Lazar had really distorted spacetime like this
back in his "Area 51" lab, every object on the face of the Earth would
have rushed into New Mexico. Before they crashed back in the 50's, the
alien saucers would have sucked the Earth right out of orbit!

Now I’m no expert in general relativity, but I believe
that there ARE solutions in GR which do involve distortions of spacetime
that are not “gravitational” in nature. (In other words they would not
“attract” things outside of the distortion.) There are serious scientists
that do serious work on wormholes and warp bubbles and other mechanisms
which could allow faster-than-light travel by taking advantage of distortions
in spacetime. As this research stands right now, it seems clear that the
energy requirements which would be required by this kind of travel are
unimaginable by any standards – even the most fanciful extrapolations of
alien technology. I’m talking about an entire star’s-worth or even a galaxy’s-worth
of energy! More mass/energy than could be contained in a tiny saucer, or
even all of New Mexico for that matter.

There are currently two main theories about gravity. The "wave" theory
which states that gravity is a wave, and the other is a theory which includes
"gravitons", which are alleged sub-atomic particles which perform as gravity,
which by the way, is total nonsense.

These statements by Lazar are "total nonsense". There is only ONE currently
accepted theory of gravity: General Relativity. In GR, gravity is described
as a distortion of spacetime, not as a particle or a wave. There are phenomena
known as "gravitational waves" which exist in GR, but this does not seem
to be what Lazar is talking about. Lazar says that gravity IS a wave. It
isn’t a wave. The "gravitons" which he speaks of are a feature of QUANTUM
gravitational theories, and I think they require a little explanation.

All physicists realize that the theories of QM and
GR are incomplete, because they are mutually incompatible. In order to
have a complete theory, theoretical physicists are looking to combine the
two into a unified theory which will involve a quantum theory of gravity.
There are currently no quantum theories of gravity that work. But even
though a satisfactory theory does not yet exist, there is nothing at all
nonsensical about gravitons. When an adequate quantum theory of gravity
IS formulated, the energy of the gravitational field will be quantized.
This quantum of the gravitational field is what physicists call the graviton.
It is no more nonsensical than the photon - which is the quantum of the
electromagnetic field.

(To add to the confusion of Lazar's statement, in
any quantum theory of gravity, as in all quantum theories, the graviton
will be, in a sense, BOTH a particle AND a wave!)

The fact that gravity is a wave has caused mainstream scientists
to surmise numerous sub-atomic particles which don't actually exist and
this has caused great complexity and confusion in the study of particle
physics.

As a particle physicist, I must say that I have NO IDEA what he is talking
about here. Surmising particles that don't exist? I can't think of a single
particle whose existence has been postulated as a result of gravitational
theories. Perhaps the graviton is one, but that’s about it.

You must have at least an atom of substance for it to be considered
"matter". At least a proton and an electron and in most cases a neutron.
Anything short of an atom such as upquarks and downquarks which make up
protons and neutrons; or protons, neutrons, or electrons, individually
are considered to be mass and do not constitute "matter" until they form
an atom.

These are peculiar and nonstandard definitions. The standard use of
the term "matter" includes anything which has mass. Even a single quark
is considered to be a particle of matter. If a quark isn’t “matter” than
what is it? All elementary particles are either matter particles or force-carrying
particles. An electron is a mater particle, and so is a quark.

It may seem like a small point, but I think that errors
like these are what make Lazar’s “theory” so dubious. How can we give much
consideration to someone who claims to be overthrowing the foundations
of particle physics, when it’s fairly obvious that he isn’t even familiar
with the terminology?

Gravity A is what is currently being labeled as the "strong nuclear
force" in mainstream physics ...

This is the place where Lazar begins to get him self in real trouble.
As it is understood now, the strong nuclear force has NOTHING TO DO WITH
GRAVITY. Such a statement shows either a complete lack of understanding
of the physics of the Standard Model of particle interactions, or a BLATANT
attempt at deception. The equations and coupling strengths which describe
the two forces are totally different and unrelated. The strong force couples
only to quarks and gluons. The gravitational force couples to all particles
with mass. The strong force is extremely short range. The range of gravity
is infinite. The gravitational coupling constant is orders of magnitude
smaller than that of the strong interaction. There is NO BASIS for using
the word "gravity" to describe the strong interaction IN ANY WAY.

If Mr. Lazar has formulated a NEW model in which the two forces are
really the same, then he has unified gravity with the other three forces
of nature, and he should publish it now and collect his Nobel Prize. If
he DOES NOT have such a new theory then his statement here is ABSOLUTELY
FALSE.

It's not good enough to just call the strong interaction "gravity A
wave". You've got to demonstrate that it actually has SOMETHING to do with
gravity if you're going to attach that name to it! The words by themselves
are meaningless. I want to see some equations. Otherwise, this statement
is not only wrong, but utterly incomprehensible.

...it should be obvious that a large, single star system, binary
star system, or multiple star system would have had more of the prerequisite
mass and electromagnetic energy present during their creations.

Now we get into some fuzzy astronomy. Mr. Lazar doesn’t seem to understand
where heavy elements come from, or how they are formed.

First we have to assume that when Lazar says “large”
he means “massive.” The "largeness" of a star says nothing about its mass.
In five or ten billion years, the sun will be as large as the orbit of
Mars. A star's size changes drastically during its lifetime. It’s pretty
clear that what Lazar should be talking about here is the MASS of the star.

The next section is a little vague, but he SEEMS to be suggesting that
his element 115, the alien fuel source, which doesn't exist on the Earth,
should be present in those solar systems that were more massive at their
inception. The implication here is that a star system which condensed out
of a more massive primordial cloud should have a greater abundance of heavier
elements. This is quite incorrect.

Heavy elements – all elements heavier than iron – are not formed during
the normal life cycles of stars. The only time when these nuclei are "cooked"
is during the collapse and subsequent explosion of supernovae. The supernova
explosion then spreads heavy elements throughout the galaxy. For this reason,
the abundances of heavy elements in any particular star system depend NOT
upon the properties of the current star, but on the properties of the nearby
stars of the PREVIOUS GENERATION! Therefore, all of the star systems in
a particular region of the galaxy will have essentially the same abundances
of heavy elements, regardless of the mass of star. If element 115 is STABLE,
as Lazar claims it to be, then it should be created in supernova explosions
and it should exist EVERYWHERE!

The most important attribute of these heavier, stable elements is
that the gravity A wave is so abundant that it actually extends past the
perimeter of the atom. These heavier, stable elements literally have their
own gravity A field around them...

No naturally occurring atoms on earth have enough protons and neutrons
for the cumulative gravity A wave to extend past the perimeter of the atom...

Since Mr. Lazar has already identified this gravity A wave with the
nuclear force, he is essentially claiming that the nuclear force of element
115 extends beyond the limits of the "115-ium" atom. (I'm tempted to call
it Lazarium...and somewhat surprised that he doesn't!!) This is simply
not possible, given the known properties of the nuclear force. The past
50 years of probing the nucleus have taught us that the range of the nuclear
force is VERY short, and protons and neutrons only feel the pull of their
nearest neighbors in a nucleus. Because of this fact, the nuclear force
extends out to about the same distance away from a nucleus NO MATTER HOW
MASSIVE THE NUCLEUS IS. This fact is fundamental to the science of nuclear
physics.

Once again, if Mr. Lazar has a NEW MODEL of the nuclear interaction
which explains the properties and decay rates of known nuclei...which can
predict the abundances of elements synthesized in the Big Bang...which
can describe all of the properties of nuclear reactions which take place
inside of stars...all as well as our current theories do all of these things
(which is VERY well!) then he should publish it and collect his Nobel Prize.
If not, then once again his statements make NO SENSE in the light of everything
that we know about nuclear interactions.

Now even though the distance that the gravity A
wave extends past the perimeter of the atom is infinitesimal, it is accessible
and it has amplitude, wavelength and frequency, just like any OTHER
wave in the electromagnetic spectrum. Once you can access the gravity A
wave, you can amplify it just like we amplify OTHER electromagnetic
waves.

(MY EMPHASIS)I have emphasized the use of the word "other" in this paragraph to
show that Mr. Lazar apparently thinks that his "gravity A wave", which
if you recall, is also the strong nuclear force, is ALSO an electromagnetic
wave. Perhaps he HAS formulated a "Grand Unified Theory" after all! Or
perhaps this is just another example of his careless use of scientific
terms.

Conclusions

I want to take some time here to talk about scientific progress,
because there is one common objection to my critique of Lazar’s scenario.
People will often say “Modern science could be wrong. Newton was wrong!
Lazar could be right!” Yes. That is correct. In fact, modern science almost
certainly IS “wrong.” But the only real test of a theory in science is
that it works. Newton’s Laws worked. They still do in most situations.
Einstein’s theories are better – they are more accurate and they work in
more situations. New theories will continue to come along that are more
precise and more generally applicable than the older theories, and these
new theories will be tested by experiments until they supplant the old
ones. That is how science has progressed for the past 400 years.

So it is not enough to SAY that modern science is
wrong. You have to demonstrate that you have something that is better.
And that “better” theory needs to do everything that
the old theory does,
and then do more. And chances are that it won’t completely turn the old
theory on it’s head – because we already know that the old theories work
too well. It is not possible to create a new theory until you understand
the old one well enough to present a coherent alternative. Calling current
science “total nonsense” is nice rhetoric, and no doubt convincing to many
non-scientists who feel alienated from science and look on scientists as
a kind of modern priesthood of arcane knowledge. But science is a process
– not a body of knowledge.

I can't possibly demonstrate conclusively that Lazar's mechanism is
impossible. All that I can hope to demonstrate here is that his scenario
would require a COMPLETE overhaul of our theories of gravity and particle
physics in order to work. Not just some minor changes...I'm talking from
the ground up. Mr. Lazar makes no mention of this fact, and he proposes
no alternative theories. But, if Lazar's scenario is true, then we will
NEED some new theories, because we are wrong about a great many things.
We don't understand gravity. We don't understand nuclear interactions.
We don't understand spacetime. We don't understand stellar evolution. However,
considering Mr. Lazar's careless use of language, his casual redefinition
of scientific terms, and the complete lack of details in his presentation,
I'm willing to bet the farm that it is actually Lazar who doesn't understand
any of these things.

But wait.....There’s an addendum!!

Lazar explains on his current webpage (www.boblazar.com)
how his element 115 not only serves as the generator of the Gravity A wave,
but ALSO as the fuel for a matter/antimatter reactor that powers the rest
of the saucer. Let's take a close look at Lazar's explanation of this reactor...

"The power source is a reactor. Inside the reactor,
element 115 is bombarded with a proton, which plugs into the nucleus of
the 115 atom and becomes element 116, which immediately decays and releases
or radiates small amounts of anti-matter. The anti-matter is released in
a vacuum into a tuned tube, which keeps it from reacting with the matter
that surrounds it. It is then directed toward the gaseous matter target
at the end of the tube. The matter, which in this case is the gas, and
the anti-matter, collide and annihilate totally converting to energy. The
heat from this reaction is converted into electrical energy in a near one
hundred percent efficient thermoelectric generator. "

Lots of impressive sounding stuff about reactors and
bombarding with protons and all that. But read it again. Antimatter and
matter are converted into energy. Fine. But where does the antimatter come
from? From element 115 when it is "bombarded with a proton" by the ship's
reactor. Hmmm. And just exactly HOW MUCH energy would your reactor have
to put into each proton to have it create an antiproton?? Well, exactly
the mass energy of an antiproton! And how much energy do you get back out
when the antiproton annihilates? EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT
YOU PUT INTO CREATING IT!!

(Actually, you can't just make an antiproton by itself,
you have to make a proton/anti-proton pair. So your reactor needs to put
in 2 "protons-worth" of mass-energy into each proton in the beam.)

If you have to MAKE your own antimatter on board,
your system produces NO NET ENERGY AT ALL!! You put 2 protons worth of
energy in, and you get 2 protons worth of energy out! In fact, the BEST
this system could do would be to make ZERO energy, but in fact, it would
more likely USE far more energy than it would make.

Conservation of energy rears it's ugly head, and once
again - it looks like Bob's saucer is going nowhere fast!